Quote:An honest sincere long termtraditional Karateka with an open mind exploring new venues, adding new competencies, recognizing similar principles. He was able to doit without adjendas or misscrediting while respecting both traditions and embracing reality.

BOOM! There it is.

No oldman you got it wrong. This quote is obviously from someone who is trying to make money by claiming he had the principles and concepts all along. Can't you see his trick. M.J., B.S., E.M., and Fo' Sho' nuff put me on to the game. There are NO principles for ground fighting contained in the kata. Period. I just wanted to get this in before they tore BuDoc a new one. He really doesn't post here anymore, but I guess they missed this one. Oh, maybe he used the term crosstraining so its okay. Or maybe its something else, I really don't know. All I know is there is no way there were ever any concepts or principles for ground fighting in karate or kata. Right guys?

I did not mean to imply that his post was a smoking gun that might put an end to the debates. What I meant to convey is that I think his post is a manifestaion an a reflection of a very healthy person and approach. The best evidence of that perhaps, being that he no longer spends time here.

His approach was Rational, objective, and flexible. He was traditional and innovative at the same time. He did not have to defend a position. He just did what he did and I'm sure to this day continues to grow and prosper.

I did not mean to imply that his post was a smoking gun that might put an end to the debates. What I meant to convey is that I think his post is a manifestaion an a reflection of a very healthy person and approach. The best evidence of that perhaps, being that he no longer spends time here.

His approach was Rational, objective, and flexible. He was traditional and innovative at the same time. He did not have to defend a position. He just did what he did and I'm sure to this day continues to grow and prosper.

Yes, but he was never critisized for his statements either. And I believe that is the point. He is innovative and others are making stuff up or just delusional. Odd, don't you think?

med, I imagine that the primary reason he was not critisized was tha he was not contentious. As he said he was a traditional guy and his experience in BJJ affirmed and informed his previous practice. As a person who has also had the same type of epiphanies I think I understand what he is saying and I'm sure some others do to.

In hindsight the use of the word innovative was not a good choice. It would be more accurate to say that he he was open to new experience. It was novel, or new to him but he never presented it as innovation.

To see similarities in different experiences is not dilusional.

When my wife and I lived in Chicago we commuted together by train. To kill time we played a game called "Celebrity Train". The goal of the game was to find other commuters that looked like celebrities. The only way you could get a point was if the other person playing agreed that the person looked like the celebrity you named. It might be "Bono" or "Abe Vagoda" or 'Merideth Viera"it really doesnt matter. The point is I might think a person looked like "Bobby MacFerron" if my wife did not agree that the commuter looked like Bobby MacFerron so she would not give me the point. On one commute we could have argued a point for a lomg time (we both like to win) but our agruement was cut short when the gentleman introduced himself to us and it was "Bobby MacFerron".

If you ask her today she will still tell you it was not him and she thinks I'm crazy. It is easier for me to admit I'm crazy than it is for my wife to admit she was not right.

Quote:med, I imagine that the primary reason he was not critisized was tha he was not contentious.

Yes, but wouldn't that make this a popularity contest and not an objective marital arts discussion board? But ultimately I guess that is what this is with a little annonymous mob mentality added in for good measure. I have always had conflict in my life and in fact I enjoy it so it doesn't really bother me. I like to post interesting observations from time to time as well. Trust me, this is nothing I haven't seen nor heard before. For me the ultimate test is making the stuff you do work. For some it is making others conform to their way of seeing and doing things. I guess its a matter of priorities.

Quote:In hindsight the use of the word innovative was not a good choice. It would be more accurate to say that he he was open to new experience. It was novel, or new to him but he never presented it as innovation.

Its usually not how the material is presented, but how other people's preconcieved notions about the poster causes them to interpret the material. Anything from screen name to previous posts to region of origin can cause these premature judgements. And it is usually these judgements which drive responses, not always the contect of the post. Again, it is still fact that BuDoc was not called on many of the things I am. And that's okay. Its really not even about if he and I are taking the same approach to our training. But the fact is both he and I have stated that karate training engrains concepts and principles for good grappling in a karateka. That included ground grappling. I bet you if asked he could give grappling apps that could be used on the ground straight from kata. But then again, BuDoc is a good guy and I am not, right? So because he is a good guy I will bare the burden. I'm good at that kind of stuff.

I guess the difference between the attitude of posts is his honesty of saying that he saw principles a different way in kata after he was trained in BJJ. ...as oppossed to giving the impression that the principles were learned from kata which were handed down untainted from master to master for centuries right to you.

one attitude is sharing honest perception and gives credit where it's due; the other tries too hard to legitimize anachronistic systems by gaining outside skill, and then attributing that awareness/skill to the traditional system, in the hopes of proving their point of "it was always there".

to take John's Micky-cloud analogy: you won't ever see a cloud in the shape of an art sculpture of which you have never seen before - but then spend the day in an art gallery and you won't be able to see anything else but cloud sculptures the next day when you look up.

did the cloud inspire you to see an art sculpure on it's own...or was it by having spent the day at an art gallery?

Quote:Lol you are overanalyzing Med, no one's trying to make you conform to anything, questions of martial arts history are a different realm than actual training.

Are you sure? In fact, I can't even make a post without someone who was not even in the conversation jumping in and begin a rant based on the fact that I do not share his same view point.

Quote:That's what this is, a question of what is actually in the historical record, not an argument about training methods or efficacy.

Zach, that's the funny thing about logic, not finding something in an incomplete historical record does not prove something false. Now, if it was written there is no ground fighting in karate or kata, then that's one thing. But to state that since you have never seen it nor been taught it nor heard of it mentioned doesn't prove anything except maybe you should dig deeper.

Zach, that's the funny thing about logic, not finding something in an incomplete historical record does not prove something false. Now, if it was written there is no ground fighting in karate or kata, then that's one thing. But to state that since you have never seen it nor been taught it nor heard of it mentioned doesn't prove anything except maybe you should dig deeper.

No, the burden of proof is on you guys making the claim, as with anything else we are debating.

No one has said there was no capoeira in Karate kata either, doesn't mean it's there.

As those on the other side have made no real claim, we don't need to "prove" anything, you guys do.

You brought up the groundfighting thing man, and so far the historical record is scant in this department.

I have never seen anywhere a photo or much description (minus the iffy stuff you guys have thrown out there as a body of evidence- slim to say the least) of oldschool Karateka doing something like grappling for position and applying a RNC or some such on the ground, unless they were crosstraining Judo. Doesn't mean they didn't know how, but it does seem to indicate that as faras we know it was at best a paralell practice to Karate, not directly a part of it.

Why would I be convinced? If in the future alot of evidence comes out to shake things up i'll certainly entertain changing my mind, but so far all you have is a few quotes that don't directly address the place of tegumi with Karate training anyway, not enough to build a case on.